> On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> A tank you cannot transport to the battlefield because it’s
>> too large/heavy to use your infrastructure is a lump of useless metal.
>> Expensive useless metal that will likely cause your troops to get killed
>> because you couldn’t afford the tanks that could be transported.
>
> That's an argument to upgrade your infrastucture, not downgrade your amor.

Which may be prohibitively expensive compared to building your tanks, which ARE FINE FOR THE ROLE THEY WERE BUILT FOR (note 'While the TAM would have been effective against any possible South American opponent” ...It’s also illogical that it was ‘helpless against any NATO standard tank'…if it mounted the same gun, it’s not precisely ‘helpless’.)

But then this is the very kind of thinking that gets us absurdities like the F-35 as a replacement for both the F-16 as an air superiority fighter and the A-10 as a ground support aircraft.

Perhaps we can call the F35 the ‘dallyplane’, to drag it back to the source material.

--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs